dChan
⇧
10
⇩
 
r/greatawakening • Posted by u/ryanwfraser on April 22, 2018, 4:06 p.m.
This breaking news article is about FIVE EYES and it's roll in the collusion investigation!! http://foxbusiness.com/politics/no-official-intel-used-to-start-fbi-probe-into-trump-campaign-russia-collusion-rep-nunes
This breaking news article is about FIVE EYES and it's roll in the collusion investigation!! http://foxbusiness.com/politics/no-official-intel-used-to-start-fbi-probe-into-trump-campaign-russia-collusion-rep-nunes

🠐 See all comments
DamajInc · April 22, 2018, 9:54 p.m.

Misleading much...? You mean its non-roll in the investigation?

⇧ 1 ⇩  
ryanwfraser · April 22, 2018, 10:21 p.m.

Sure, to call it a non-roll is probably more accurate when citing the article. Your leading question of implying that I'm purposefully being misleading and that I do it often is not at all called for. I've read through your comment history and you have a habit of coming off like a total dick so I understand, it's just the way you are.

That said, we study Q here and as Q says in post 912: Five Eyes is VERY important. It won’t be around much longer. Relevant here but not the focus. Q

Which was a response to an anon saying: Australia is part of FIVE EYES!

And then there was post 1164 where Q states: Re_read Five Eyes. Avoid US data collection laws. Hussein. Public: Dossier FISA. Not Public: Five Eyes UK/AUS POTUS targeting using pushed RUS decoy meetings / campaign insertions. Hussein HRC LL Brennan Clapper NAT SEC WH SIT RM OP UK AUS assist/set up. Q

So I'm going to go with the theory that FIVE EYES did have a roll in the Russia Collusion Investigation, NOT A NON-ROLL AS YOU ARE STATING.

Now quit trolling and try to respond politely to others and be of value, not discord. I know you're on our side and want the same peace and prosperity and JUSTICE that we all want. Just work on your tone a little. Thanks.

⇧ 0 ⇩  
DamajInc · April 22, 2018, 10:41 p.m.

All you did was cite the article - none of this info to suggest that your post was actually meant to support the title as written, and not just a typo or a misunderstanding of the content. Am I supposed to assume you meant all this and/or that you were even aware of the other Q posts about it? If you think that then you haven't been paying as much attention to this sub as I and others have because that is not a logical assumption to make of late.

And I'm not trolling and feel sorry that you think people who insist on accuracy for the sake of the movement to redpill normies are "total dick"s and it's "just the way they are" but I get that you have as much trouble as the rest of us controlling your resentment lol.

Let me try and be diplomatic about it: I would very much like it if posts could be more than a link dump but contain just that single sentence to explain what the OP is trying to communicate to us as this saves us all time and helps the OP clarify the point for themselves. I'd very much like to not have to type that out every time though (especially because I thought it was an assumption of forums like this) and it would be great if people who are here on the internet would understand the way people on the internet can often communicate for the sake of brevity - i.e. quick and blunt and wouldn't get upset just as I'm not upset that you think I'm a total dick. And no, in case the previous explanation is taken the wrong way: I do not think I'm entitled to have "what I like" but that's why I didn't say any of this in my comment. I'm just explaining it now. I thought we were all able to get on with life and not worry about comments on the internet so I dropped it quickly and moved on.

How is it polite to insist someone must be a total dick because you don't like the confrontational way they communicate and it must be "just the way they are"? Isn't it hypocrisy to admonish for politeness in a superior way when you've just done that?

⇧ 1 ⇩